What is considered the "clean" way to address this error:
```
tst60.d(7): Error: class `tst60.B` cannot implicitly generate a
default constructor when base class `tst60.A` is missing a
default constructor
```
Yes, this is a toy example, but it reflects something I'm doing
in actual code. The subclass has no state, thus it's fine to let
the superclass take care of initialization. Do I really need a
shim like this:
```d
this(int val) {
super(val);
}
```
In my class B just to placate the compiler? Is this considered
the idiomatic way to deal with such a class organization?
```d
class A {
int v;
this(int val) {
this.v = val;
}
}
class B : A {
int myfunc() {
return this.v;
}
}
int main() {
auto b = new B(1);
return b.myfunc();
}
```
